Slashdot Mirror
A Photorealistic CGI TV Series Coming Real Soon Now
ziggy_zero writes "SoulPix has revealed their project named "SoulFire", a photorealistic computer-generated TV series created entirely with 3ds max. Here's a trailer (it's in German). Looks pretty cool, better than those CGI cartoons I've seen - although definitely not even Final Fantasy quality. Note - apparently the DivX version was encoded using a weird codec that doesn't work on all players, so you might be better off getting the Quicktime version."
One thing that, as far as I know, hasn't been tried yet is a photorealistic CGI Drama, as in a a serious film with a good point that is CGI. I would be interesting to see if it were a good movie if it were scoffed off becasue it was CG.
Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
"Note - apparently the DivX version was encoded using a weird codec that doesn't work on all players, so you might be better off getting the Quicktime version."
To me this seems to be the biggest problem in adopting these new compression techiques for audio/video(ogg vorbis/ DivX etc.)
Except for still shots. Watch closely in mags in the next year. Cover shots? Ads? No little sidebar saying so-and so is wearing Gap--no sir-- that is a CG complete rendered at 1/2 (and soon to be 1/10) the cost. And you won't know.
Models revolting, although a model hunger strike wouldn't be very fruitful.
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
although definitely not even Final Fantasy quality
Many fans' primary beef with the FF movie was the thin plot, not the lack of impressive CGI. For a movie, a lot of effort can be invested in minute details etc to render with realism.
For a TV series, I would expect less quality simply because there is less time to rollout, and continuous rollouts as opposed to one big event.
That being said, cgi is great for things like Gollum, dinosaurs and other such stuff. It's also great for stunt doubles, where some things are just too damn dangerous to pull off with a real live human.
My patience is infinite, my time is not.
I remember reading somewhere that there is a chasm when the models gets too near "realistic." Like from no resemblance to real world (cartoon networks' toonami robot) to "100% human-like" models, the "realism" would scale linearly until you get to about 95%, which the realism just falls because the models simply "don't look right," or something. of course, eventually it would be possible to climb back the chasm to reach 100%, but I suppose that's really hard. =)
I read this in wired a while back, I believe; and no blinking is not a fault of the CG tech, but rather that of the guys doing this stuff - in better CG things (final fantasy for one - heck even in games they put in blinking characters now), they put in the details.
Btw, FF (movie) seemed weird and creepy but you CAN'T explain what's no "not real" about it - a good example of the "chasm."
And for another example - for anybody who seen the promotional video of Final Fantasy X-2 where there is a comparative track between the real singer doing her song and dance number, and cutting to the CG (Yuna) doing the same, you can see how strangely unreal the CG version is - though looking at CG version alone does not necessarily give you the idea.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Don't get me wrong, the visuals are nice and all. But the motion seemed really forced and awkward. I don't mean to put the show down, but realism is more then a pretty picture; details that are left out seem blatently obvious. Lack of skin texture gives it a nonrealistic feel, the sense that the mouths and words didn't match up well, and the way that the characters moved seemed very strange, almost like they were staggering around (especially in the concluding shot of the trailor). I think that the animation definately is good, and could be really successful in creating a good show. It's unfonate that a few things could detract from well done CGI images, but that seems to separate the average CGI animation from the extremely realistic.
take off every sig for great justice
Why are we shooting for photorealistic CG TV shows? I can understand the use of CG technology for putting characters in dangerous situations where actors can't be used, or creating shots that would be difficult or impossible to attain through other means. But why have total shows created of it, are actors *that* much more expensive than the combined cost of the brilliant artists and voice actors? Sure its a cool use of technology, but why is this going onto TV rather than staying on a geek's drawing board somewhere? As someone else already pointed out, they haven't got it quite right yet, with lack of blinking and other minute movements. What's the motivation behind this type of project, aside from the "cool hack" factor?
Like Invader Zim, South Park, and Futurama, where they use 3D effects for effect, not as a central element of the show.
Accordingly mplayer the trailer was encoded with DivX 5.03, so if it doesn't work for anyone, they probably just need to upgrade DivX to the latest version.
I'm wondering if animated shows like these can attract enough viewers to become viable to produce. I know many recent CGI movies and televison shows have disappeared because their expenditures were higher than their revenues. Lets hope the same doesn't happen to "SoulFire" that befowled "Final Fantasy: The Spirts Within", "Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genious", and "Star Wars: Episode II".
Reboot was a very good show. The animation was pretty close to the cutting edge when it was produced and the writing was very well done. It was a very good children's show.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
It's probably just me but I like the low tech cartoons.
They seem to have more character.
I like the hand drawn style of Betty Boop, the claymation style like Wallace and Gromit, paper cutouts (or Sgi computer simulations of) like South Park, and the puppet animations like the works of George Pal.
You just hit the nail right on the head. Geri's Game, a four-minute short film, was more fun to watch and more engaging than the entire 100-minute mess that was Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.
Besides, Final Fantasy lost me when they got to the mannequin of Ben Affleck with Alec Baldwin's voice coming out of it. That just made no sense at all.
I write in my journal
Exactly.. the problem is that a large part of our brains are programmed to recognize, differentiate, and judge other human beings. So if something looks ALMOST like a human being, chances are it will look grotesque.
# (/.);;
- : float -> float -> float =
I don't know what you refered to by "it," but:
I don't think the lack of realism really came from the redering technologies, but rather the modelling technologies.
Take the comparison between the real-actress and the CGI (Final Fantasy X-2 promotional video) for example, the lighting and such are all perfectly fine; but you can notice how "rigid" and un-natural the CG character's body moves.
I think, personally, that during movement, any fancy rendering effects are lost, but the actual movement themselves are the critical "realism" that needs to be addressed.
For one, human limbs move on a
1) feed-back system, which would be hard to simulate its complexities simply by dragging the block that says "arm" from here to there,
2) the feed-back is also has a lot to do with balance, another thing difficult to simulate properly, with such a complex system as the human body.
Interesting enough, Final Fantasy (the movie) is completely shot with the little humans too; I think it has to do with the fact that we cannot track the positions of the dots perfectly, though.
It should be possible eventually to do a GPS-esq system where the room has "location transponders" and each "dot" on the actor/actress's body would calculate it's location and send it out wirelessly to a computer somewhere nearby. I think after that, we can see some very good reproduction of human motions.
just my arm-chair thoughts after watching CG generated stuff for a long time.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
I know what CG means (Computer Graphics)... but what does CGI mean in this context?
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
Just discussing this at work yesterday and we all agreed the stunning realism of Feathers McGraw just as he walked into the house for the first time and looked at Grommit was a pivotal moment. How they make a lump of plasticine (clay) act so lifelike is a true art. There's a lot to do with the timing, camera angle, script, etc etc that's missing from things like FF (movie, cutscenes etc).
pithy comment
The term 'photorealistic' refers more to the look they're trying to achieve, than the actual outcome.
Advanced users are users too!